Alex Padilla advocates for maintaining the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
Key Takeaways
- California Sen. Alex Padilla reaffirmed support for the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship, pushing back on President Donald Trump’s bid to end it.
- In a Senate setting, Padilla engaged UVA Law professor Amanda Frost on the Citizenship Clause’s Civil War-era purpose and its repudiation of Dred Scott.
- Padilla cited the case of Narciso Barranco, a father of three U.S. citizen Marine veterans, who was reportedly detained by masked CBP agents before an immigration judge dismissed his case.
- Padilla joined Sens. Dick Durbin and Jacky Rosen in a bicameral amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief defending jus soli in Trump v. Barbara.
- Under current law and Supreme Court precedent (Wong Kim Ark), ending birthright citizenship would likely require a constitutional amendment or a major Court reversal.
Padilla’s stance and the Senate exchange
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), the son of Mexican immigrants, reiterated that he will fight to preserve birthright citizenship (jus soli) guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. It has been reported that he called Republican proposals to end this right “absurd” and questioned University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost about the Citizenship Clause’s origins. Frost explained the clause was added in the 1860s to overturn Dred Scott and cement equal citizenship after the Civil War. Padilla underscored that, with extremely limited exceptions rooted in common law—such as children of foreign diplomats—those born on U.S. soil are citizens.
The legal backdrop and new litigation
The legal foundation for birthright citizenship is robust: the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that almost everyone born in the United States is a citizen. Although President Donald Trump has sought to end the practice, any attempt to do so unilaterally would face immediate legal hurdles and would likely require a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court shift. Last month, Padilla joined Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and others in filing a bicameral amicus curiae brief supporting birthright citizenship in a case identified as Trump v. Barbara, signaling coordinated congressional defense of the clause.
Human impact: families and due process
Padilla pointed to the experience of Narciso Barranco—father of three U.S. citizen Marine veterans—as emblematic of the stakes. It has been reported that Barranco was violently detained by masked U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Orange County, California; an immigration judge dismissed his case last month. For families navigating the system now, nothing has changed: children born in the United States remain U.S. citizens under current law, with narrow exceptions (for example, children of foreign diplomats). Passports and other proofs of citizenship continue to be issued under longstanding standards. Still, ongoing litigation and political pressure could generate confusion; immigrants and mixed‑status families should monitor court developments and consult qualified counsel if policy shifts are announced.
Source: Original Article